State v. Chapman

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Chapman

2023 Ohio 2108

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 23, 2023

DocketCT2022-0067

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2023 Ohio 2108 (State v. Chapman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Chapman, 2023 Ohio 2108 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Chapman, 2023-Ohio-2108.]

COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- : : Case No. CT2022-0067 : CHAD CHAPMAN : : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2021-0596

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 23, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:

RON WELCH CHRIS BRIGDON MUSKINGUM CO. PROSECUTOR 8138 Somerset Rd. JOHN CONNOR DEVER Thornville, OH 43076 27 North Fifth St., P.O. Box 189 Zanesville, OH 43702 Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0067 2

Delaney, J.

{¶1} Appellant Chad Chapman appeals from the August 29, 2022 Entry of the

Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the state of Ohio.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} The following evidence is adduced from the record of appellant’s jury trial.

{¶3} Appellant is the former brother-in-law of John Doe, the victim in this case.

The two have known each other for several years. On September 23, 2021, appellant’s

ex-wife was in jail and appellant was staying at her house on Spruce Street in Zanesville,

taking care of her dogs.

Neighbor sees man beaten and calls 911

{¶4} Sometime after 11:00 p.m., a Neighbor near the house in Spruce Street was

awakened by yelling outside. Neighbor looked out her window and saw appellant, whom

she recognized, repeatedly hitting a man sitting on the sidewalk. The man “just sat there”

and did not hit appellant. Neighbor watched as the man got up, walked to a vehicle, and

attempted to get in. The man fell out of the car, flat into the street, striking the asphalt so

hard Neighbor could hear it. She didn’t know if he was still alive because he laid

completely still. Neighbor called 911 twice and police arrived within 5 minutes of the

second call. When asked on cross-examination about the “fight” she observed, Neighbor

maintained this was not a “fight;” appellant repeatedly struck the man but he didn’t fight

back.

{¶5} Ptl. Bragg of the Zanesville Police Department responded to Neighbor’s 911

call and found a white male laying in the street with blood on his face and shirt. The man

seemed intoxicated and told Bragg he fell down. Bragg suspected there was more to the Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0067 3

story than a fall because the man appeared to be seriously injured. Bragg asked whether

the man was in a fight and he said he didn’t remember. An ambulance was called and

the man was transported to the hospital.

{¶6} As the ambulance left, appellant came out of his house and spoke to Bragg.

He said John Doe was at his house and became highly intoxicated; appellant told him not

to leave, but Doe insisted and he fell. Bragg noted appellant also appeared drunk. Bragg

was skeptical of appellant’s account and photographed the residence. He spoke to

Neighbor by telephone because she did not want to be identified and she told him what

she saw. Bragg went to the hospital to check John Doe’s condition and found him

unconscious. A doctor said he had a severe brain bleed.

{¶7} At trial the parties stipulated John Doe was diagnosed with a brain bleed

and that his blood alcohol content at the hospital was .206.

Appellant speaks to Doe’s Mother and friend

{¶8} Chris Zinn is a friend of John Doe’s Mother. Mother loaned Doe her car that

day to run errands. When he didn’t come home at night, Mother was worried. When she

woke up the next morning and the car was still missing, Mother asked Zinn to look for

Doe. Zinn called Doe’s phone twice and the second time, appellant answered. Appellant

told Zinn Doe’s car was at his house, and Zinn realized appellant had Doe’s cell phone

for some reason.

{¶9} Zinn and Mother went to appellant’s house, together, to look for Doe and to

retrieve the car keys and cell phone. Appellant let them in and said he and Doe fought

over a dog and Doe was presently in the hospital. Zinn asked why and appellant said “I

had to beat him down.” Appellant further stated he and Doe got into a fight; he dragged Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0067 4

Doe out front and beat him “within an inch of his life;” Doe was unconscious when

appellant left him in the street; and Doe was likely in the hospital because an ambulance

came. Zinn and Mother collected Doe’s keys, wallet, and cell phone from appellant and

left for the hospital, where they found Doe beaten black and blue.

John Doe remembers little

{¶10} John Doe testified that around 11:00 p.m. on September 23, 2021, appellant

called and asked him to bring over some bread. Doe complied and he and appellant

started drinking beer. Doe remembered appellant shoving him inside the house, but

doesn’t remember anything else other than appellant beating him. Doe denied breaking

appellant’s phone, kicking a dog, and kicking down the door of the house. He denied

attacking appellant in any way and only recalled that he was beaten and woke up in the

hospital. When shown photos of two doors of the residence, both broken in, Doe said the

doors were broken before his sister went to jail and appellant had kicked in one of the

doors previously. Doe acknowledged he has a conviction for falsification.

Appellant’s testimony: self-defense

{¶11} Appellant was the sole defense witness. He denied asking John Doe to

bring bread to the residence and said Doe just showed up and started drinking appellant’s

beer. The two listened to music from appellant’s phone and shared a joint. Appellant

said Doe asked him for money and when appellant refused, Doe “flipped.” Appellant said

Doe tried to break his cell phone in half, kicked a dog, and threatened him. Appellant

testified Doe drug him outside the house and was “swinging on him.” Appellant said he

hit Doe a few times and then he “managed to shut the door and lock it.” T. 224. Appellant

further stated Doe landed several blows on him outside and he swung back only to defend Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0067 5

himself, two or three times, “[l]ong enough for [him] to get away from [Doe].” T. 224. At

some point, Doe struck appellant in the ribs with a rock.

{¶12} According to appellant, Doe remained outside and he put his keys, wallet,

and cell phone on a table, hoping Doe would leave. Instead, Doe forced his way back in

by kicking in the back door. When shown a photo of the broken door jamb, appellant said

Doe was responsible for the damage that night.

{¶13} After Doe kicked the door in and re-entered the residence, appellant

testified, the two fought and Doe verbally threatened repeatedly to “kick his ass.”

Appellant stated he was only trying to get away from Doe, and Doe fell a few times out

back and a few times out front of the house. Appellant was able to get back in the house

after Doe fell in the front. When asked whether he called 911, appellant testified he

couldn’t because Doe broke his phone.

{¶14} Upon cross examination, when asked why he told Bragg Doe was

intoxicated and he told him not to leave, appellant said “Must have been mistaken.” T.

234. When asked why he changed his story when confronted with Neighbor’s statement

to police, appellant insisted he was simply defending himself from Doe. Further, appellant

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI